Young v. Kraus et al
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION re 156 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 04/09/2018. Plaintiff's March 9, 2018 "Objection," which has been construed as a motion for reconsideration of this Court's February 16, 2018 order, is HEREBY DENIED. (eps, )COURTS CERTIFICATE of Service - Non-Registered CM/ECF Participants served by First Class Mail to: Christopher Young; P.O. Box 1545; Pahoa, HI 96778 to the address of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
MICHAEL M. KRAUS, Owner of
Tree Works Inc., COUNTY OF
HAWAII, POLICE DEPARTMENT,
PATRICK T. KIHARA as a Police )
Officer in the County of
Hawaii, State of Hawaii, JOHN )
DOES 1-10, JANE DOES 1-10,
DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10, DOE
PARTNERSHIPS 1-10, AND DOE
GOVERNMENT ENTITIES 1-10,
CIVIL 15-00383 LEK-KSC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On January 22, 2018, the magistrate judge filed his
Findings and Recommendation to Grant Defendants’ Motion for
Sanctions Against Plaintiff (“1/22/18 F&R”).
[Dkt. no. 152.]
January 24, 2018, the magistrate judge filed an entering order as
a supplement to the 1/22/18 F&R (“1/24/18 F&R Supplement”).
[Dkt. no. 154.]
On February 16, 2018, this Court filed an order
adopting the 1/22/18 F&R, as modified by the 1/24/18 F&R
Supplement (“2/16/18 Order”).
[Dkt. no. 155.]
On March 9, 2018 pro se Plaintiff Christopher Young
(“Plaintiff”) filed a document titled
Verification of Plaintiff’s Objection to Judge
Kevin S.C. Chang’s Findings and Recommendation to
Grant Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions and
Dismissal Against Plaintiff [Dkt. No. 152] on
01/22/18 and Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi’s Order
Adopting Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
Recommendation [Dkt. No. 155] on 2/16/18 for
Failure to Address Proof of Evidence in the
[Dkt. no. 156.]
Plaintiff’s filing has been construed as a
motion for reconsideration of the 2/16/18 Order (“Motion for
[EO: Court Order Regarding Pltf.’s
“Objection” Filed on March 9, 2017 [sic], filed 3/12/18 (dkt.
The Court has considered the Motion for
Reconsideration as non-hearing matter pursuant to Rule LR7.2(e)
of the Local Rules of Practice of the United States District
Court for the District of Hawai`i.
Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration is hereby denied for the reasons set forth below.
The parties and this Court are familiar with the
factual and procedural background of this case, and only the
background relevant to the Motion for Reconsideration will be
At the time of the 1/22/18 F&R, Defendants
Michael M. Kraus and Tree Works, Inc. (“the Tree Works
Defendants”) were the only remaining defendants in this case.
See Order Denying the Portion of Pltf.’s Motion Seeking
Reconsideration of this Court’s January 27, 2017 Order and
Denying Without Prejudice the Portion of the Motion Attempting to
Appeal the Order or Rulings Issued by the Magistrate Judge, filed
2/17/17 (dkt. no. 111) (“2/17/17 Reconsideration Order”), at 9
(terminating Defendants the County of Hawai`i, the County of
Hawai`i Police Department, and Patrick T. Kihara as parties).1
The 1/22/18 F&R recommended that this Court grant the
Tree Works Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions Against Plaintiff
(“Motion for Sanctions”), [filed 12/5/17 (dkt. no. 142)].
Tree Works Defendants sought dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims
against them on the ground that Plaintiff failed to comply with
orders filed on June 23, 2017, October 12, 2017, and November 7,
[Motion for Sanctions at 2; Mem. in Supp. of Motion for
Sanctions at 7.]
Plaintiff did not file a memorandum in
opposition to the Motion for Sanctions, but presented arguments
at the January 22, 2018 hearing on the Motion for Sanctions.
[Minutes, filed 1/22/18 (dkt. no. 151).]
In the 1/22/18 F&R, the magistrate judge found
Plaintiff’s failure to comply with multiple court orders
“resulted in additional motions practice and . . . interfer[ed]
with the orderly progression of this action.”
[1/22/18 F&R at
In addition, Plaintiff’s “abusive and unfounded use of the
appeals process . . . impede[d] the proceedings.”
burdensome delays caused by Plaintiff’s tactics “threaten[ed] to
The 2/17/17 Reconsideration Order is also available at
2017 WL 659393.
interfere with the rightful decision of the case,” and further
delays “would be unduly prejudicial” to the Tree Works
[Id. at 8.]
The magistrate judge also found prior
attempts to discourage Plaintiff’s tactics through sanctions less
drastic than dismissal were unsuccessful.
The magistrate judge
therefore recommended dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against the
Tree Works Defendants and an award of attorney’s fees incurred in
connection with the Motion for Sanctions.
[Id. at 9-10.]
1/24/18 F&R Supplement recommended the Tree Works Defendants be
awarded $826.50 in attorney’s fees.
[Dkt. no. 154.]
previously noted, the 2/16/18 Order adopted the 1/22/18 F&R, as
modified by the 1/24/18 F&R Supplement.
In the instant Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff
argues reconsideration of the 2/16/18 Order is warranted because:
this Court, the magistrate judge, the defendants, and defense
counsel are corrupt; the 1/22/18 F&R did not address all of the
relevant evidence in this case; this case was improperly removed
from state court; the Ninth Circuit is also corrupt, and this
case has been improperly allowed to proceed while Plaintiff’s
Ninth Circuit appeals were pending; Kraus’s liability for the
injuries Plaintiff suffered in the motor vehicle accident at
issue in this case has never been addressed; Kihara’s liability
for failing to issue a citation regarding the accident has not
been addressed; and this case presents many issues regarding the
violation of Hawai`i insurance laws, which should be addressed in
the state courts.
The 2/16/18 Order was a case dispositive order.
light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, his Motion for
Reconsideration is liberally construed as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)
See, e.g., Pregana v. CitiMortgage, Inc., Civil No.
14-00226 DKW-KSC, 2015 WL 1966671, at *2 (D. Hawai`i Apr. 30,
2015) (“The Court liberally construes the [plaintiffs’] filings
because they are proceeding pro se.” (citing Eldridge v. Block,
832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987))).
Rule 59(e) states: “A motion to alter or amend a
judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of
Plaintiffs may seek reconsideration pursuant to
Rule 59(e), even though final judgment has not been entered in
See Grandinetti v. Sells, CIV. NO. 16-00517 DKW/RLP,
2016 WL 6634868, at *1 (D. Hawai`i Nov. 8, 2016) (“When a ruling
has resulted in a final judgment or order . . . a motion for
reconsideration may be construed as either a motion to alter or
amend judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or a
motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b).” (citing Sch.
Dist. No. 1J Multnomah Cty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262
(9th Cir. 1993))).
Rule 59(e) offers “an extraordinary remedy, to be
used sparingly in the interests of finality and
conservation of judicial resources.” Carroll v.
Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
In the Ninth Circuit, a successful motion for
reconsideration must accomplish two goals. First,
“a motion for reconsideration must demonstrate
some reason why the court should reconsider its
prior decision.” Na Mamo O `Aha `Ino v. Galiher,
60 F. Supp. 2d 1058, 1059 (D. Haw. 1999). Second,
it “must set forth facts or law of a strongly
convincing nature to induce the court to reverse
its prior decision.” Id.
Courts have established three grounds
justifying reconsideration: (1) an intervening
change in controlling law; (2) the availability of
new evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear
error or prevent manifest injustice. Allstate
Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir.
2011); Mustafa v. Clark County Sch. Dist., 157
F.3d 1169, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 1998). The District
of Hawaii has implemented these standards in Local
United States ex rel. Atlas Copco Compressors LLC v. RWT LLC,
Civ. No. 16-00215 ACK-KJM, 2017 WL 2986586, at *1 (D. Hawai`i
July 13, 2017).
To the extent the Motion for Reconsider alleges this
case was wrongfully removed and should be decided in state court,
Plaintiff’s arguments have been considered and rejected in
multiple prior orders.
See, e.g., Order Denying “Verification of
Plaintiff’s Objection to Judges Failiar to Address the Rule 4
Violations of the Defendants County’s Counsel in the Removal on
9/28/2015,” filed 4/19/16 (dkt. no. 46), at 5-7; Order Denying
Pltf.’s Appeal of the Magistrate Judge’s Order Granting Defs.’
Motion for Sanctions Against Pltf., filed 10/12/17 (dkt.
no. 134), at 5-6; Order Denying Pltf.’s Motion for
Reconsideration, filed 11/1/17 (dkt. no. 11/7/17), at 4-5.2
Court will not revisit those arguments here.
the 1/22/18 F&R, the 1/24/18 F&R Supplement, nor the 2/16/18
Order addressed issues related to removal and remand.
Plaintiff’s arguments related to removal and remand cannot be
grounds for reconsideration of the 2/16/18 Order.
Similarly, the 1/22/18 F&R, the 1/24/18 F&R Supplement,
and the 2/16/18 Order did not address Plaintiff’s claims against
Kihara, and this Court has already disposed of those claims on
[Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part the
County Defs.’ Motion to Dismiss Christopher Young Amendment (Sic)
of Complaint Filed March 4, 2016 [Document 35], filed 1/27/17
(dkt. no. 106) (“1/27/17 Dismissal Order”), at 9-15;3 2/17/17
Reconsideration Order at 3-7.]
Plaintiff’s arguments related to
his claims against Kihara cannot be grounds for reconsideration
of the 2/16/18 Order.
Plaintiff is correct that his claims against Kraus have
not been addressed on the merits, and the 2/16/18 Order does not
The 4/19/16 order, the 10/12/17 order, and the 11/7/17
order are also available at 2016 WL 1587217, 2017 WL 4560129, and
2017 WL 5163237, respectively.
The 1/27/17 Dismissal Order is also available at 2017 WL
390268. The 2/17/17 Reconsideration Order denied Plaintiff’s
motion for reconsideration of the 1/27/17 Order.
address all of the evidence in this case.
arguments do not constitute grounds for reconsideration of the
2/16/18 Order because Plaintiff’s claims against Kraus have been
dismissed, not on the merits, but as a sanction for Plaintiff’s
repeated failure to comply with court orders.
The fact that
Plaintiff’s claims against Kraus have not been addressed on the
merits is not grounds for reconsideration of the 2/16/18 Order.
Plaintiff also argues this case should not have been
allowed to proceed while his appeals were pending before the
First, Plaintiff never moved for a stay pending
any of his appeal.
Second, even if he had made such motions,
they would have been denied because all of the appeals were
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; none of Plaintiff’s appeals
were considered on the merits.
See Ninth Circuit Order, filed
6/10/16 (dkt. no. 62); Ninth Circuit Order, filed 8/29/16 (dkt.
no. 74); Ninth Circuit Order, filed 4/21/17 (dkt. no. 118); Ninth
Circuit Order, filed 12/19/17 (dkt. no. 146).
To the extent
Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the 2/16/18 Order on the
ground that he was not required to comply with the court orders
discussed in the 1/22/18 F&R during the pendency of his Ninth
Circuit appeals, Plaintiff’s argument is rejected.
Finally, Plaintiff’s corruption argument fails.
extent he alleges his failure to comply with court orders should
not be sanctioned because of misconduct by the Tree Works
Defendants and their counsel, Plaintiff has failed to identify
any specific misconduct, violation of the applicable rules, or
violation of court orders.
Further, Plaintiff never sought and
obtained sanctions against the Tree Works Defendants.
has also failed to identify any specific judicial misconduct.
the extent Plaintiff believed there was any judicial impropriety,
his remedy was to file a motion to recuse, which he did not do.
Plaintiff’s unsubstantiated beliefs that the Tree Works
Defendants and their counsel were corrupt and that there was
judicial misconduct in this case did not excuse him from
complying with court orders and do not constitute grounds for
reconsideration of the 2/16/18 Order.
The alleged corruption is
nothing more than a suspicion based on Plaintiff’s disagreement
with the Tree Works Defendants’ position and with the judicial
rulings in this case.
“Mere disagreement with a previous order
is an insufficient basis for reconsideration.”
Abercrombie, Civil No. 11-00144 LEK-BMK, 2014 WL 2468348, at *3
n.4 (D. Hawai`i June 2, 2014) (citations and internal quotation
Plaintiff has therefore failed to present any ground
that warrants reconsideration of the 2/16/18 Order.
On the basis of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s March 9,
2018 “Objection,” which has been construed as a motion for
reconsideration of this Court’s February 16, 2018 order, is
The Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to enter final
judgment and close the case immediately.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, April 9, 2018.
/s/ Leslie E. Kobayashi
Leslie E. Kobayashi
United States District Judge
CHRISTOPHER YOUNG VS. MICHAEL M. KRAUSE, ETC., ET AL; CIVIL 1500383 LEK-KSC; ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?